Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
## (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levelsCharacteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 250 | 51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75) | 50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75) | 51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75) | 0.559 |
gender | 250 | 0.327 | |||
f | 204 (82%) | 99 (79%) | 105 (84%) | ||
m | 46 (18%) | 26 (21%) | 20 (16%) | ||
occupation | 250 | 0.711 | |||
day_training | 6 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
full_time | 29 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 15 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.4%) | ||
part_time | 43 (17%) | 23 (18%) | 20 (16%) | ||
retired | 61 (24%) | 28 (22%) | 33 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 4 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.6%) | 3 (2.4%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 55 (22%) | 29 (23%) | 26 (21%) | ||
marital | 250 | 0.776 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
divore | 27 (11%) | 15 (12%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
in_relationship | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
married | 76 (30%) | 35 (28%) | 41 (33%) | ||
none | 117 (47%) | 59 (47%) | 58 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (7.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
edu | 250 | 0.690 | |||
bachelor | 54 (22%) | 24 (19%) | 30 (24%) | ||
diploma | 42 (17%) | 25 (20%) | 17 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 17 (6.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
primary | 22 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 13 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 66 (26%) | 31 (25%) | 35 (28%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.2%) | 6 (4.8%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
fam_income | 250 | ||||
10001_12000 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
18001_20000 | 12 (4.8%) | 8 (6.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
20001_above | 43 (17%) | 26 (21%) | 17 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 37 (15%) | 18 (14%) | 19 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 22 (8.8%) | 13 (10%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.0%) | 11 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
below_2000 | 46 (18%) | 21 (17%) | 25 (20%) | ||
medication | 250 | 224 (90%) | 112 (90%) | 112 (90%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 250 | 15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63) | 14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56) | 15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63) | 0.814 |
onset_age | 250 | 36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72) | 35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72) | 36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68) | 0.732 |
diagnosis_schizophrenia | 250 | 50 (20%) | 25 (20%) | 25 (20%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_delusional | 250 | 13 (5.2%) | 7 (5.6%) | 6 (4.8%) | 0.776 |
diagnosis_schizoaffective | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_schizoid | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_transient_psychotic | 250 | 2 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic | 250 | ||||
no | 250 (100%) | 125 (100%) | 125 (100%) | ||
diagnosis_depression | 250 | 138 (55%) | 69 (55%) | 69 (55%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_bipolar | 250 | 24 (9.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 14 (11%) | 0.390 |
diagnosis_anxiety | 250 | 87 (35%) | 46 (37%) | 41 (33%) | 0.507 |
diagnosis_phobia | 250 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | 0.197 |
diagnosis_personality_disorders | 250 | 3 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 0.247 |
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_other | 250 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | 0.323 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 250 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.406 |
recovery_stage_b | 250 | 17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24) | 17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24) | 17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24) | 0.835 |
ras_confidence | 250 | 29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45) | 30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45) | 0.637 |
ras_willingness | 250 | 11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15) | 11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15) | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 0.905 |
ras_goal | 250 | 17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.413 |
ras_reliance | 250 | 13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20) | 13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20) | 0.614 |
ras_domination | 250 | 9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15) | 9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15) | 0.206 |
symptom | 250 | 30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70) | 31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70) | 30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56) | 0.301 |
slof_work | 250 | 22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30) | 0.989 |
slof_relationship | 250 | 24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35) | 24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35) | 25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35) | 0.252 |
satisfaction | 250 | 20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35) | 19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35) | 21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35) | 0.136 |
mhc_emotional | 250 | 10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19) | 10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19) | 0.459 |
mhc_social | 250 | 15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30) | >0.999 |
mhc_psychological | 250 | 21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36) | 21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36) | 0.715 |
resilisnce | 250 | 16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30) | 0.177 |
social_provision | 250 | 13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 0.032 |
els_value_living | 250 | 16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25) | 16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25) | 17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25) | 0.331 |
els_life_fulfill | 250 | 12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20) | 12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20) | 13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20) | 0.100 |
els | 250 | 29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45) | 29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45) | 30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45) | 0.154 |
social_connect | 250 | 27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48) | 27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48) | 26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48) | 0.293 |
shs_agency | 250 | 14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24) | 0.110 |
shs_pathway | 250 | 15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24) | 15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24) | 16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24) | 0.057 |
shs | 250 | 30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48) | 29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48) | 0.070 |
esteem | 250 | 12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20) | 12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20) | 0.732 |
mlq_search | 250 | 14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21) | 0.105 |
mlq_presence | 250 | 13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21) | 13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21) | 13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21) | 0.396 |
mlq | 250 | 28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42) | 27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42) | 28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42) | 0.183 |
empower | 250 | 19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30) | 19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 0.351 |
ismi_resistance | 250 | 14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 0.981 |
ismi_discrimation | 250 | 11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20) | 11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20) | 11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20) | 0.823 |
sss_affective | 250 | 10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.629 |
sss_behavior | 250 | 10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.867 |
sss_cognitive | 250 | 8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.402 |
sss | 250 | 29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54) | 29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 0.682 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.109 | 2.99, 3.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.128 | 0.155 | -0.431, 0.175 | 0.408 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.007 | 0.135 | -0.258, 0.272 | 0.958 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.211 | 0.195 | -0.172, 0.594 | 0.281 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.269 | 17.4, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.381 | -0.827, 0.667 | 0.834 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.226 | 0.251 | -0.717, 0.266 | 0.370 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.968 | 0.364 | 0.255, 1.68 | 0.008 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.503 | 28.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.336 | 0.711 | -1.06, 1.73 | 0.637 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.717 | 0.406 | -0.079, 1.51 | 0.079 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.20 | 0.590 | 0.042, 2.35 | 0.044 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.184 | 11.3, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.032 | 0.260 | -0.478, 0.542 | 0.902 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.030 | 0.176 | -0.316, 0.376 | 0.866 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.318 | 0.256 | -0.184, 0.820 | 0.215 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.290 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.344 | 0.410 | -0.459, 1.15 | 0.402 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.364 | 0.265 | -0.155, 0.883 | 0.170 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.520 | 0.384 | -0.233, 1.27 | 0.177 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.263 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.184 | 0.372 | -0.544, 0.912 | 0.621 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.329 | 0.214 | -0.090, 0.748 | 0.125 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.344 | 0.311 | -0.265, 0.952 | 0.270 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.214 | 9.53, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.392 | 0.303 | -0.986, 0.202 | 0.197 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.038 | 0.216 | -0.384, 0.461 | 0.859 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.818 | 0.313 | 0.205, 1.43 | 0.010 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.5 | 0.877 | 29.8, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.29 | 1.240 | -3.72, 1.14 | 0.300 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.44 | 0.664 | -2.74, -0.139 | 0.031 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.067 | 0.965 | -1.83, 1.96 | 0.945 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.1 | 0.408 | 21.3, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.577 | -1.14, 1.12 | 0.989 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.375 | 0.347 | -0.306, 1.06 | 0.282 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.183 | 0.504 | -0.805, 1.17 | 0.717 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.5 | 0.514 | 23.5, 25.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.727 | -0.585, 2.27 | 0.249 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.390 | 0.426 | -0.445, 1.22 | 0.361 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.219 | 0.619 | -0.994, 1.43 | 0.724 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.7 | 0.642 | 18.4, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.37 | 0.908 | -0.411, 3.15 | 0.133 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.19 | 0.495 | 0.222, 2.16 | 0.017 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.082 | 0.719 | -1.49, 1.33 | 0.910 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.334 | 9.99, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.352 | 0.473 | -0.574, 1.28 | 0.457 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.324 | 0.264 | -0.194, 0.842 | 0.222 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.041 | 0.384 | -0.712, 0.794 | 0.915 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.543 | 14.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.768 | -1.50, 1.50 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.731 | 0.438 | -0.128, 1.59 | 0.097 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.341 | 0.637 | -0.908, 1.59 | 0.593 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.627 | 20.3, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.320 | 0.887 | -1.42, 2.06 | 0.719 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.999 | 0.478 | 0.062, 1.94 | 0.038 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.153 | 0.695 | -1.51, 1.21 | 0.826 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.389 | 15.4, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.760 | 0.551 | -0.319, 1.84 | 0.168 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.736 | 0.351 | 0.047, 1.42 | 0.038 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.449 | 0.510 | -0.551, 1.45 | 0.380 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.250 | 12.7, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.744 | 0.354 | 0.051, 1.44 | 0.036 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.105 | 0.211 | -0.520, 0.309 | 0.620 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.438 | 0.307 | -0.164, 1.04 | 0.156 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.285 | 16.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.392 | 0.403 | -0.398, 1.18 | 0.332 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.300 | 0.237 | -0.164, 0.764 | 0.207 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.371 | 0.344 | -0.304, 1.05 | 0.282 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.294 | 11.8, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.696 | 0.416 | -0.119, 1.51 | 0.095 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.286 | 0.225 | -0.156, 0.727 | 0.206 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.246 | 0.327 | -0.396, 0.888 | 0.453 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.539 | 28.1, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 0.763 | -0.407, 2.58 | 0.155 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.598 | 0.395 | -0.176, 1.37 | 0.132 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.610 | 0.574 | -0.516, 1.74 | 0.290 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 0.817 | 26.3, 29.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.22 | 1.155 | -3.48, 1.05 | 0.293 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.788 | 0.628 | -2.02, 0.443 | 0.211 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.53 | 0.913 | -3.32, 0.258 | 0.095 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.447 | 13.0, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.632 | -0.230, 2.25 | 0.112 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.378 | 0.342 | -0.293, 1.05 | 0.271 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.513 | 0.497 | -0.461, 1.49 | 0.303 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.363 | 14.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.513 | 0.003, 2.01 | 0.050 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.571 | 0.305 | -0.027, 1.17 | 0.063 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.287 | 0.444 | -0.582, 1.16 | 0.518 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.770 | 27.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.02 | 1.090 | -0.119, 4.15 | 0.065 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.949 | 0.592 | -0.211, 2.11 | 0.110 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.797 | 0.861 | -0.890, 2.48 | 0.355 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.140 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.072 | 0.198 | -0.460, 0.316 | 0.716 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.209 | 0.166 | -0.534, 0.117 | 0.211 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.306 | 0.240 | -0.165, 0.777 | 0.204 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.310 | 13.8, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.720 | 0.438 | -0.139, 1.58 | 0.101 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.647 | 0.318 | 0.023, 1.27 | 0.043 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.703 | 0.461 | -1.61, 0.201 | 0.129 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.377 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.464 | 0.533 | -0.581, 1.51 | 0.385 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.586 | 0.340 | -0.081, 1.25 | 0.087 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.338 | 0.494 | -0.630, 1.31 | 0.495 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.5 | 0.617 | 26.3, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.873 | -0.528, 2.90 | 0.176 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.24 | 0.572 | 0.122, 2.36 | 0.031 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.374 | 0.830 | -2.00, 1.25 | 0.653 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 0.402 | 18.1, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.528 | 0.569 | -0.588, 1.64 | 0.354 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.722 | 0.332 | 0.071, 1.37 | 0.031 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.040 | 0.483 | -0.907, 0.986 | 0.935 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.223 | 13.9, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.316 | -0.627, 0.611 | 0.980 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.192 | 0.241 | -0.280, 0.663 | 0.427 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.547 | 0.349 | -0.136, 1.23 | 0.118 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.276 | 11.3, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.088 | 0.391 | -0.853, 0.677 | 0.822 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.453 | 0.281 | -1.00, 0.097 | 0.108 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.431 | 0.407 | -1.23, 0.367 | 0.291 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.325 | 9.76, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.224 | 0.460 | -0.677, 1.12 | 0.626 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.368 | 0.257 | -0.872, 0.137 | 0.155 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.673 | 0.374 | -1.41, 0.060 | 0.073 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.332 | 9.52, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.470 | -1.00, 0.841 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.524 | 0.265 | -1.04, -0.005 | 0.049 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.253 | 0.385 | -1.01, 0.501 | 0.511 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.71 | 0.334 | 8.06, 9.37 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.408 | 0.473 | -0.519, 1.33 | 0.389 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.309 | 0.263 | -0.825, 0.206 | 0.241 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.690 | 0.382 | -1.44, 0.059 | 0.073 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.935 | 27.5, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.552 | 1.323 | -2.04, 3.14 | 0.677 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.20 | 0.666 | -2.51, 0.103 | 0.073 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.56 | 0.969 | -3.46, 0.335 | 0.108 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(431) = 29.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(431) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 7.08e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.27], t(431) = 0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = 5.81e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.59], t(431) = 1.08, p = 0.280; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(431) = 66.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(431) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.27], t(431) = -0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [0.25, 1.68], t(431) = 2.66, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [0.09, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.67], t(431) = 59.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(431) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.51], t(431) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [0.04, 2.35], t(431) = 2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [7.46e-03, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.98], t(431) = 63.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.54], t(431) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.38], t(431) = 0.17, p = 0.866; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.82], t(431) = 1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.62, 17.75], t(431) = 59.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(431) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.88], t(431) = 1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.27], t(431) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(431) = 50.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91], t(431) = 0.50, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.75], t(431) = 1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.95], t(431) = 1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(431) = 46.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(431) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.46], t(431) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [0.20, 1.43], t(431) = 2.61, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.09, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.21], t(431) = 35.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.14], t(431) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-2.74, -0.14], t(431) = -2.17, p = 0.030; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.28, -0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.83, 1.96], t(431) = 0.07, p = 0.945; Std. beta = 6.91e-03, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.66e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.86], t(431) = 54.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.12], t(431) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.06], t(431) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.17], t(431) = 0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(431) = 47.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(431) = 1.16, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.22], t(431) = 0.92, p = 0.360; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.43], t(431) = 0.35, p = 0.724; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.41, 20.92], t(431) = 30.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(431) = 1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [0.22, 2.16], t(431) = 2.41, p = 0.016; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.49, 1.33], t(431) = -0.11, p = 0.910; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.30], t(431) = 31.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.28], t(431) = 0.74, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.84], t(431) = 1.23, p = 0.220; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.79], t(431) = 0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(431) = 27.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.09e-13, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.50], t(431) = -5.32e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = 4.45e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.59], t(431) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.59], t(431) = 0.53, p = 0.593; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.78], t(431) = 34.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(431) = 0.36, p = 0.718; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [0.06, 1.94], t(431) = 2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [8.94e-03, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.21], t(431) = -0.22, p = 0.826; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(431) = 41.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(431) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.42], t(431) = 2.09, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.01, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.45], t(431) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(431) = 52.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(431) = 2.10, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.31], t(431) = -0.50, p = 0.619; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.04], t(431) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(431) = 58.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(431) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.76], t(431) = 1.27, p = 0.205; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.05], t(431) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(431) = 42.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(431) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.73], t(431) = 1.27, p = 0.205; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.89], t(431) = 0.75, p = 0.452; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.22], t(431) = 54.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(431) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.37], t(431) = 1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.74], t(431) = 1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.28, 29.48], t(431) = 34.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.48, 1.05], t(431) = -1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.44], t(431) = -1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-3.32, 0.26], t(431) = -1.68, p = 0.093; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.96, 14.72], t(431) = 30.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.25], t(431) = 1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.05], t(431) = 1.10, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.49], t(431) = 1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.04], t(431) = 42.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [2.62e-03, 2.01], t(431) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [6.39e-04, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.17], t(431) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-6.64e-03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.16], t(431) = 0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.66, 30.68], t(431) = 37.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.12, 4.15], t(431) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.21, 2.11], t(431) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.48], t(431) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.53, 13.07], t(431) = 91.53, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.32], t(431) = -0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.12], t(431) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.78], t(431) = 1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.91e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(431) = 46.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(431) = 1.64, p = 0.100; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [0.02, 1.27], t(431) = 2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [6.77e-03, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-1.61, 0.20], t(431) = -1.52, p = 0.127; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(431) = 34.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(431) = 0.87, p = 0.384; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.25], t(431) = 1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.31], t(431) = 0.68, p = 0.494; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(431) = 44.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.90], t(431) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.24, 95% CI [0.12, 2.36], t(431) = 2.17, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.02, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-2.00, 1.25], t(431) = -0.45, p = 0.652; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(431) = 46.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.64], t(431) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [0.07, 1.37], t(431) = 2.17, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.02, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.99], t(431) = 0.08, p = 0.935; Std. beta = 8.88e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(431) = 64.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.61], t(431) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.21e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.66], t(431) = 0.80, p = 0.426; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.23], t(431) = 1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(431) = 42.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.68], t(431) = -0.23, p = 0.822; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.10], t(431) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.23, 0.37], t(431) = -1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.12])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(431) = 32.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(431) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.14], t(431) = -1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.06], t(431) = -1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(431) = 30.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(431) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.04, -4.67e-03], t(431) = -1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.28, -1.26e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.50], t(431) = -0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(431) = 26.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.33], t(431) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.21], t(431) = -1.18, p = 0.240; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.06], t(431) = -1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.88e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(431) = 31.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(431) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-2.51, 0.10], t(431) = -1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.24, 9.86e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.56, 95% CI [-3.46, 0.33], t(431) = -1.61, p = 0.106; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,394.924 | 1,407.163 | -694.462 | 1,388.924 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,398.405 | 1,422.885 | -693.203 | 1,386.405 | 2.518 | 3 | 0.472 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 2,115.255 | 2,127.495 | -1,054.628 | 2,109.255 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 2,112.036 | 2,136.516 | -1,050.018 | 2,100.036 | 9.219 | 3 | 0.027 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,629.549 | 2,641.788 | -1,311.774 | 2,623.549 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,612.300 | 2,636.780 | -1,300.150 | 2,600.300 | 23.249 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,785.452 | 1,797.692 | -889.726 | 1,779.452 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,787.505 | 1,811.984 | -887.752 | 1,775.505 | 3.947 | 3 | 0.267 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 2,177.074 | 2,189.314 | -1,085.537 | 2,171.074 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 2,169.481 | 2,193.961 | -1,078.741 | 2,157.481 | 13.592 | 3 | 0.004 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 2,053.341 | 2,065.580 | -1,023.670 | 2,047.341 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 2,047.558 | 2,072.038 | -1,017.779 | 2,035.558 | 11.782 | 3 | 0.008 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,943.154 | 1,955.393 | -968.577 | 1,937.154 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,934.995 | 1,959.475 | -961.498 | 1,922.995 | 14.159 | 3 | 0.003 |
symptom | null | 3 | 3,080.731 | 3,092.971 | -1,537.366 | 3,074.731 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 3,077.232 | 3,101.712 | -1,532.616 | 3,065.232 | 9.499 | 3 | 0.023 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,444.009 | 2,456.249 | -1,219.004 | 2,438.009 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,446.500 | 2,470.980 | -1,217.250 | 2,434.500 | 3.509 | 3 | 0.320 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,638.505 | 2,650.745 | -1,316.252 | 2,632.505 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,640.076 | 2,664.556 | -1,314.038 | 2,628.076 | 4.429 | 3 | 0.219 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,816.691 | 2,828.931 | -1,405.345 | 2,810.691 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,810.386 | 2,834.865 | -1,399.193 | 2,798.386 | 12.305 | 3 | 0.006 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 2,246.308 | 2,258.548 | -1,120.154 | 2,240.308 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 2,248.486 | 2,272.965 | -1,118.243 | 2,236.486 | 3.823 | 3 | 0.281 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,681.261 | 2,693.501 | -1,337.631 | 2,675.261 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,679.244 | 2,703.724 | -1,333.622 | 2,667.244 | 8.017 | 3 | 0.046 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,787.833 | 2,800.072 | -1,390.916 | 2,781.833 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,786.705 | 2,811.185 | -1,387.353 | 2,774.705 | 7.127 | 3 | 0.068 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,435.555 | 2,447.795 | -1,214.778 | 2,429.555 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,424.198 | 2,448.678 | -1,206.099 | 2,412.198 | 17.357 | 3 | 0.001 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 2,020.452 | 2,032.692 | -1,007.226 | 2,014.452 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 2,016.552 | 2,041.032 | -1,002.276 | 2,004.552 | 9.900 | 3 | 0.019 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 2,130.035 | 2,142.275 | -1,062.018 | 2,124.035 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 2,125.479 | 2,149.959 | -1,056.740 | 2,113.479 | 10.556 | 3 | 0.014 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 2,130.706 | 2,142.946 | -1,062.353 | 2,124.706 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 2,126.328 | 2,150.808 | -1,057.164 | 2,114.328 | 10.378 | 3 | 0.016 |
els | null | 3 | 2,648.681 | 2,660.920 | -1,321.340 | 2,642.681 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,641.104 | 2,665.584 | -1,314.552 | 2,629.104 | 13.577 | 3 | 0.004 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 3,030.082 | 3,042.322 | -1,512.041 | 3,024.082 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 3,020.001 | 3,044.481 | -1,504.001 | 3,008.001 | 16.081 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,496.188 | 2,508.427 | -1,245.094 | 2,490.188 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,491.116 | 2,515.596 | -1,239.558 | 2,479.116 | 11.071 | 3 | 0.011 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,349.870 | 2,362.109 | -1,171.935 | 2,343.870 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,340.330 | 2,364.810 | -1,164.165 | 2,328.330 | 15.539 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs | null | 3 | 2,977.868 | 2,990.108 | -1,485.934 | 2,971.868 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 2,968.904 | 2,993.383 | -1,478.452 | 2,956.904 | 14.964 | 3 | 0.002 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,601.467 | 1,613.707 | -797.733 | 1,595.467 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,605.465 | 1,629.945 | -796.733 | 1,593.465 | 2.002 | 3 | 0.572 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 2,262.007 | 2,274.247 | -1,128.004 | 2,256.007 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 2,262.679 | 2,287.159 | -1,125.340 | 2,250.679 | 5.328 | 3 | 0.149 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,400.777 | 2,413.016 | -1,197.388 | 2,394.777 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,396.069 | 2,420.549 | -1,192.035 | 2,384.069 | 10.707 | 3 | 0.013 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,837.514 | 2,849.754 | -1,415.757 | 2,831.514 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,835.276 | 2,859.756 | -1,411.638 | 2,823.276 | 8.238 | 3 | 0.041 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,429.156 | 2,441.396 | -1,211.578 | 2,423.156 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,424.932 | 2,449.412 | -1,206.466 | 2,412.932 | 10.224 | 3 | 0.017 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,993.905 | 2,006.145 | -993.953 | 1,987.905 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,990.365 | 2,014.844 | -989.182 | 1,978.365 | 9.540 | 3 | 0.023 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 2,165.530 | 2,177.769 | -1,079.765 | 2,159.530 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 2,159.689 | 2,184.169 | -1,073.845 | 2,147.689 | 11.840 | 3 | 0.008 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 2,234.916 | 2,247.155 | -1,114.458 | 2,228.916 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 2,224.543 | 2,249.023 | -1,106.272 | 2,212.543 | 16.372 | 3 | 0.001 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 2,251.833 | 2,264.073 | -1,122.917 | 2,245.833 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 2,246.197 | 2,270.676 | -1,117.098 | 2,234.197 | 11.636 | 3 | 0.009 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 2,255.343 | 2,267.583 | -1,124.671 | 2,249.343 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 2,247.081 | 2,271.560 | -1,117.540 | 2,235.081 | 14.262 | 3 | 0.003 |
sss | null | 3 | 3,125.079 | 3,137.318 | -1,559.539 | 3,119.079 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 3,112.840 | 3,137.319 | -1,550.420 | 3,100.840 | 18.239 | 3 | 0.000 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 125 | 3.20 ± 1.22 | 125 | 3.07 ± 1.22 | 0.408 | 0.130 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 99 | 3.21 ± 1.21 | -0.007 | 88 | 3.29 ± 1.20 | -0.222 | 0.638 | -0.084 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 125 | 17.88 ± 3.01 | 125 | 17.80 ± 3.01 | 0.834 | 0.044 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 99 | 17.65 ± 2.88 | 0.125 | 88 | 18.54 ± 2.82 | -0.413 | 0.034 | -0.494 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 125 | 29.69 ± 5.62 | 125 | 30.02 ± 5.62 | 0.637 | -0.116 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 99 | 30.40 ± 5.30 | -0.248 | 88 | 31.94 ± 5.16 | -0.661 | 0.046 | -0.530 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 125 | 11.62 ± 2.06 | 125 | 11.66 ± 2.06 | 0.902 | -0.025 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 99 | 11.65 ± 1.97 | -0.024 | 88 | 12.00 ± 1.94 | -0.275 | 0.222 | -0.276 |
ras_goal | 1st | 125 | 17.18 ± 3.24 | 125 | 17.53 ± 3.24 | 0.402 | -0.181 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 99 | 17.55 ± 3.09 | -0.192 | 88 | 18.41 ± 3.03 | -0.466 | 0.054 | -0.456 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 125 | 13.14 ± 2.94 | 125 | 13.33 ± 2.94 | 0.621 | -0.121 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 99 | 13.47 ± 2.77 | -0.216 | 88 | 14.00 ± 2.70 | -0.441 | 0.188 | -0.346 |
ras_domination | 1st | 125 | 9.95 ± 2.40 | 125 | 9.56 ± 2.40 | 0.197 | 0.253 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 99 | 9.99 ± 2.31 | -0.025 | 88 | 10.42 ± 2.28 | -0.552 | 0.206 | -0.274 |
symptom | 1st | 125 | 31.50 ± 9.81 | 125 | 30.21 ± 9.81 | 0.300 | 0.272 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 99 | 30.06 ± 9.19 | 0.305 | 88 | 28.83 ± 8.91 | 0.290 | 0.357 | 0.258 |
slof_work | 1st | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.56 | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.56 | 0.989 | 0.003 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 99 | 22.44 ± 4.32 | -0.151 | 88 | 22.61 ± 4.21 | -0.225 | 0.779 | -0.071 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 125 | 24.50 ± 5.75 | 125 | 25.34 ± 5.75 | 0.249 | -0.276 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 99 | 24.89 ± 5.43 | -0.128 | 88 | 25.95 ± 5.29 | -0.200 | 0.178 | -0.348 |
satisfaction | 1st | 125 | 19.66 ± 7.18 | 125 | 21.03 ± 7.18 | 0.133 | -0.388 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 99 | 20.86 ± 6.74 | -0.338 | 88 | 22.14 ± 6.54 | -0.315 | 0.186 | -0.365 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 125 | 10.65 ± 3.74 | 125 | 11.00 ± 3.74 | 0.457 | -0.187 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 99 | 10.97 ± 3.52 | -0.172 | 88 | 11.36 ± 3.42 | -0.194 | 0.439 | -0.208 |
mhc_social | 1st | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.07 | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.07 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 99 | 15.86 ± 5.72 | -0.234 | 88 | 16.20 ± 5.57 | -0.343 | 0.680 | -0.109 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 125 | 21.55 ± 7.02 | 125 | 21.87 ± 7.02 | 0.719 | -0.094 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 99 | 22.55 ± 6.58 | -0.293 | 88 | 22.72 ± 6.38 | -0.248 | 0.860 | -0.049 |
resilisnce | 1st | 125 | 16.18 ± 4.35 | 125 | 16.94 ± 4.35 | 0.168 | -0.302 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 99 | 16.91 ± 4.15 | -0.292 | 88 | 18.12 ± 4.06 | -0.471 | 0.045 | -0.480 |
social_provision | 1st | 125 | 13.17 ± 2.80 | 125 | 13.91 ± 2.80 | 0.036 | -0.492 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 99 | 13.06 ± 2.65 | 0.070 | 88 | 14.24 ± 2.58 | -0.220 | 0.002 | -0.782 |
els_value_living | 1st | 125 | 16.76 ± 3.19 | 125 | 17.15 ± 3.19 | 0.332 | -0.232 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 99 | 17.06 ± 3.01 | -0.177 | 88 | 17.82 ± 2.93 | -0.397 | 0.081 | -0.451 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 125 | 12.41 ± 3.29 | 125 | 13.10 ± 3.29 | 0.095 | -0.434 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 99 | 12.69 ± 3.08 | -0.178 | 88 | 13.64 ± 2.99 | -0.331 | 0.035 | -0.587 |
els | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 6.03 | 125 | 30.26 ± 6.03 | 0.155 | -0.387 | ||
els | 2nd | 99 | 29.77 ± 5.63 | -0.213 | 88 | 31.46 ± 5.46 | -0.430 | 0.037 | -0.604 |
social_connect | 1st | 125 | 27.88 ± 9.13 | 125 | 26.66 ± 9.13 | 0.293 | 0.272 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 99 | 27.09 ± 8.57 | 0.176 | 88 | 24.35 ± 8.32 | 0.518 | 0.027 | 0.614 |
shs_agency | 1st | 125 | 13.84 ± 4.99 | 125 | 14.85 ± 4.99 | 0.112 | -0.414 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 99 | 14.22 ± 4.68 | -0.155 | 88 | 15.74 ± 4.55 | -0.366 | 0.025 | -0.624 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 125 | 15.33 ± 4.06 | 125 | 16.34 ± 4.06 | 0.050 | -0.462 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 99 | 15.90 ± 3.84 | -0.262 | 88 | 17.19 ± 3.74 | -0.394 | 0.020 | -0.594 |
shs | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 8.61 | 125 | 31.18 ± 8.61 | 0.065 | -0.478 | ||
shs | 2nd | 99 | 30.12 ± 8.08 | -0.225 | 88 | 32.93 ± 7.85 | -0.414 | 0.016 | -0.667 |
esteem | 1st | 125 | 12.80 ± 1.56 | 125 | 12.73 ± 1.56 | 0.716 | 0.060 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 99 | 12.59 ± 1.54 | 0.173 | 88 | 12.83 ± 1.53 | -0.081 | 0.298 | -0.194 |
mlq_search | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 3.46 | 125 | 15.08 ± 3.46 | 0.101 | -0.314 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 99 | 15.01 ± 3.35 | -0.282 | 88 | 15.02 ± 3.30 | 0.025 | 0.972 | -0.007 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 125 | 13.15 ± 4.22 | 125 | 13.62 ± 4.22 | 0.385 | -0.191 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 99 | 13.74 ± 4.02 | -0.240 | 88 | 14.54 ± 3.93 | -0.379 | 0.169 | -0.329 |
mlq | 1st | 125 | 27.51 ± 6.90 | 125 | 28.70 ± 6.90 | 0.176 | -0.289 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 99 | 28.75 ± 6.60 | -0.303 | 88 | 29.56 ± 6.47 | -0.212 | 0.398 | -0.197 |
empower | 1st | 125 | 18.85 ± 4.50 | 125 | 19.38 ± 4.50 | 0.354 | -0.222 | ||
empower | 2nd | 99 | 19.57 ± 4.25 | -0.304 | 88 | 20.14 ± 4.14 | -0.321 | 0.356 | -0.239 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 2.50 | 125 | 14.35 ± 2.50 | 0.980 | 0.005 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 99 | 14.55 ± 2.43 | -0.110 | 88 | 15.09 ± 2.40 | -0.425 | 0.128 | -0.310 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 125 | 11.79 ± 3.09 | 125 | 11.70 ± 3.09 | 0.822 | 0.044 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 99 | 11.34 ± 2.98 | 0.224 | 88 | 10.82 ± 2.94 | 0.437 | 0.232 | 0.257 |
sss_affective | 1st | 125 | 10.40 ± 3.63 | 125 | 10.62 ± 3.63 | 0.626 | -0.122 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 99 | 10.03 ± 3.42 | 0.200 | 88 | 9.58 ± 3.32 | 0.567 | 0.363 | 0.245 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 125 | 10.18 ± 3.72 | 125 | 10.10 ± 3.72 | 0.865 | 0.042 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 99 | 9.65 ± 3.50 | 0.277 | 88 | 9.32 ± 3.40 | 0.411 | 0.510 | 0.176 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 125 | 8.71 ± 3.74 | 125 | 9.12 ± 3.74 | 0.389 | -0.218 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 99 | 8.40 ± 3.51 | 0.165 | 88 | 8.12 ± 3.42 | 0.533 | 0.579 | 0.150 |
sss | 1st | 125 | 29.29 ± 10.46 | 125 | 29.84 ± 10.46 | 0.677 | -0.117 | ||
sss | 2nd | 99 | 28.09 ± 9.75 | 0.254 | 88 | 27.07 ± 9.43 | 0.584 | 0.471 | 0.214 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(392.28) = -0.83, p = 0.408, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.18)
2st
t(423.66) = 0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.43)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(324.68) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)
2st
t(385.23) = 2.13, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.71)
ras_confidence
1st
t(303.21) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.74)
2st
t(361.04) = 2.00, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.03 to 3.04)
ras_willingness
1st
t(330.01) = 0.12, p = 0.902, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.54)
2st
t(390.04) = 1.22, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.91)
ras_goal
1st
t(321.34) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.15)
2st
t(382.00) = 1.93, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.74)
ras_reliance
1st
t(304.29) = 0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)
2st
t(362.46) = 1.32, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.31)
ras_domination
1st
t(339.61) = -1.29, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.20)
2st
t(397.69) = 1.27, p = 0.206, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.09)
symptom
1st
t(295.87) = -1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.15)
2st
t(350.66) = -0.92, p = 0.357, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.83 to 1.38)
slof_work
1st
t(310.42) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.13)
2st
t(370.12) = 0.28, p = 0.779, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.40)
slof_relationship
1st
t(306.62) = 1.16, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)
2st
t(365.46) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.49 to 2.60)
satisfaction
1st
t(297.80) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.15)
2st
t(353.51) = 1.32, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.62 to 3.20)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(300.79) = 0.74, p = 0.457, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)
2st
t(357.75) = 0.77, p = 0.439, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.39)
mhc_social
1st
t(303.36) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)
2st
t(361.23) = 0.41, p = 0.680, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.97)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(296.57) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)
2st
t(351.70) = 0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.03)
resilisnce
1st
t(319.38) = 1.38, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)
2st
t(380.02) = 2.01, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.03 to 2.39)
social_provision
1st
t(309.50) = 2.10, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)
2st
t(369.02) = 3.09, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.43 to 1.93)
els_value_living
1st
t(307.07) = 0.97, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)
2st
t(366.03) = 1.75, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.62)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(297.11) = 1.67, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.51)
2st
t(352.49) = 2.12, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.82)
els
1st
t(292.49) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)
2st
t(345.46) = 2.09, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.10 to 3.29)
social_connect
1st
t(297.55) = -1.05, p = 0.293, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.49 to 1.06)
2st
t(353.14) = -2.22, p = 0.027, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-5.18 to -0.32)
shs_agency
1st
t(297.11) = 1.60, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.25)
2st
t(352.49) = 2.25, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.19 to 2.85)
shs_pathway
1st
t(308.88) = 1.97, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.00 to 2.02)
2st
t(368.26) = 2.33, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.20 to 2.39)
shs
1st
t(297.50) = 1.85, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.13 to 4.16)
2st
t(353.06) = 2.41, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.52 to 5.11)
esteem
1st
t(381.15) = -0.36, p = 0.716, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.32)
2st
t(419.86) = 1.04, p = 0.298, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.68)
mlq_search
1st
t(344.01) = 1.64, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)
2st
t(400.82) = 0.03, p = 0.972, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.97)
mlq_presence
1st
t(319.23) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.51)
2st
t(379.86) = 1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.95)
mlq
1st
t(323.78) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)
2st
t(384.38) = 0.85, p = 0.398, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.07 to 2.69)
empower
1st
t(306.25) = 0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.65)
2st
t(364.99) = 0.92, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.78)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(355.21) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)
2st
t(407.82) = 1.53, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.23)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(342.02) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.68)
2st
t(399.43) = -1.20, p = 0.232, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.37 to 0.33)
sss_affective
1st
t(300.95) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)
2st
t(357.97) = -0.91, p = 0.363, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.52)
sss_behavior
1st
t(301.68) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)
2st
t(358.97) = -0.66, p = 0.510, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.66)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(300.17) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)
2st
t(356.88) = -0.56, p = 0.579, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.72)
sss
1st
t(289.78) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)
2st
t(341.10) = -0.72, p = 0.471, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.77 to 1.75)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(222.37) = 1.54, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.50)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(205.38) = 2.81, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.26)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(200.02) = 4.47, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (1.07 to 2.76)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(206.69) = 1.87, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.71)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(204.55) = 3.17, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.33 to 1.43)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(200.29) = 2.98, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.12)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(209.04) = 3.78, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.41 to 1.30)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(198.14) = -1.96, p = 0.103, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.76 to 0.01)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(201.84) = 1.52, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.28)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(200.88) = 1.36, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.49)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(198.64) = 2.13, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.08 to 2.14)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(199.40) = 1.31, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.91)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(200.05) = 2.32, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.98)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(198.32) = 1.68, p = 0.190, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.84)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(204.07) = 3.20, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.45 to 1.91)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(201.61) = 1.49, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.11 to 0.77)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(200.99) = 2.69, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.16)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(198.46) = 2.24, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.00)
els
1st vs 2st
t(197.27) = 2.89, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.38 to 2.03)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(198.57) = -3.50, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-3.63 to -1.01)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(198.46) = 2.47, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.60)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(201.45) = 2.67, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.49)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(198.56) = 2.79, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.51 to 2.98)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(219.39) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.44)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(210.12) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.60)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(204.03) = 2.58, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.63)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(205.16) = 1.44, p = 0.302, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.06)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(200.79) = 2.17, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.45)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(212.86) = 2.93, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.24)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(209.63) = -3.00, p = 0.006, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-1.47 to -0.30)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(199.44) = -3.83, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.58 to -0.51)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(199.63) = -2.78, p = 0.012, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.33 to -0.23)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(199.24) = -3.60, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.55 to -0.45)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(196.56) = -3.93, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-4.15 to -1.38)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(211.73) = 0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.27)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(199.38) = -0.90, p = 0.740, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.27)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(195.57) = 1.77, p = 0.158, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.52)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(200.32) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.38)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(198.79) = 1.38, p = 0.341, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.16 to 0.89)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(195.77) = 1.54, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.09 to 0.75)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(202.00) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.46)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(194.25) = -2.17, p = 0.063, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-2.75 to -0.13)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(196.86) = 1.08, p = 0.565, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.06)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(196.19) = 0.92, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.23)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(194.60) = 2.41, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.17)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(195.14) = 1.23, p = 0.444, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.85)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(195.60) = 1.67, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.60)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(194.38) = 2.09, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.94)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(198.45) = 2.09, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.43)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(196.70) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.31)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(196.27) = 1.27, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.17 to 0.77)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(194.47) = 1.27, p = 0.413, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.16 to 0.73)
els
1st vs 2st
t(193.63) = 1.51, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.38)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(194.55) = -1.25, p = 0.423, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.45)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(194.47) = 1.10, p = 0.542, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.05)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(196.59) = 1.87, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.17)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(194.54) = 1.60, p = 0.221, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.12)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(209.52) = -1.25, p = 0.422, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.12)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(202.77) = 2.03, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.27)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(198.42) = 1.72, p = 0.174, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.26)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(199.22) = 2.17, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.11 to 2.37)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(196.12) = 2.17, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.38)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(204.75) = 0.80, p = 0.854, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.28 to 0.67)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(202.42) = -1.61, p = 0.217, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.10)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(195.17) = -1.43, p = 0.310, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.14)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(195.30) = -1.98, p = 0.099, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.05 to -0.00)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(195.03) = -1.18, p = 0.483, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.21)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(193.13) = -1.80, p = 0.145, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-2.52 to 0.11)
Plot
